Month: March 2013

I was very glad to hear recently from Anna Coote of nef that they will be publishing a fuller treatment of new approaches to working time. Anna and I agree that it is vital to think of this in the context of working lives, ie over the full period of the decades that people work. Her earlier work for nef focussed very much on a shorter working week, and explored the very broad range of benefits which would flow from a general shortening of the week: a better spread of employment, better family arrangements and a more environmentally friendly consumption patterns, to name but three rather large ones. It's good news…

What is a 'reasonable' pace of change? This is a more basic political question than it might appear. Classically it separates out the revolutionaries from the gradualists. After all, the literal origin of the Fabian movement lies exactly in its gradualism - but Fabians would still see gradual steps as a route to radical reform. On any given issue, there might be quite a lot of consensus on the direction of progress, but serious disagreement on how quickly things can happen (cf the Church of England's recent writhings on women bishops). As Carolyn Heilbron observed, reflecting on a different institution: “Women have legally transformed the marriage relation in under 150…

It's International Women's Day tomorrow, but there'll be no Paula post as I'll be under the surgeon's knife (nothing dramatic). In the run-up I notice particularly a major report from Warwick University analysing the salaries of 17000 recent graduates in full-time work (part-timers again slide out of the picture...). It notes how persistent the gender pay gap is, but also how it varies, from 28% in law to 4% in education. This is at the outset of their careers, remember - things will only get wider. However I thought I'd write on something a bit different. I've just finished Rosemary Ashton's story of Victorian Bloomsbury. I'm lucky enough to be a Bloomsbury…

"The flexibility of Britain's labour market makes stagnation slightly more tolerable in the short-term than in countries where rigid labour markets have contributed to high unemployment. Yet there is a price to pay, as many jobs are part-time or temporary; when you take account of inflation, wages overall are declining." Thus Pier Carlo Padoan, chief economist of OECD, writing in this month's Prospect magazine. Nothing remarkable there, you might say. Padoan goes on: "If economic weakness lingers, there is a risk of further polarisation between full-time employees and those in part-time, insecure, often low-paid work." Again, the statement is in one sense unremarkable - except for the important warning from…

I was very glad to hear recently from Anna Coote of nef that they will be publishing a fuller treatment of new approaches to working time. Anna and I agree that it is vital to think of this in the context of working lives, ie over the full period of the decades that people work. Her earlier work for nef focussed very much on a shorter working week, and explored the very broad range of benefits which would flow from a general shortening of the week: a better spread of employment, better family arrangements and a more environmentally friendly consumption patterns, to name but three rather large ones. It's good news…

What is a 'reasonable' pace of change? This is a more basic political question than it might appear. Classically it separates out the revolutionaries from the gradualists. After all, the literal origin of the Fabian movement lies exactly in its gradualism - but Fabians would still see gradual steps as a route to radical reform. On any given issue, there might be quite a lot of consensus on the direction of progress, but serious disagreement on how quickly things can happen (cf the Church of England's recent writhings on women bishops). As Carolyn Heilbron observed, reflecting on a different institution: “Women have legally transformed the marriage relation in under 150…

It's International Women's Day tomorrow, but there'll be no Paula post as I'll be under the surgeon's knife (nothing dramatic). In the run-up I notice particularly a major report from Warwick University analysing the salaries of 17000 recent graduates in full-time work (part-timers again slide out of the picture...). It notes how persistent the gender pay gap is, but also how it varies, from 28% in law to 4% in education. This is at the outset of their careers, remember - things will only get wider. However I thought I'd write on something a bit different. I've just finished Rosemary Ashton's story of Victorian Bloomsbury. I'm lucky enough to be a Bloomsbury…

"The flexibility of Britain's labour market makes stagnation slightly more tolerable in the short-term than in countries where rigid labour markets have contributed to high unemployment. Yet there is a price to pay, as many jobs are part-time or temporary; when you take account of inflation, wages overall are declining." Thus Pier Carlo Padoan, chief economist of OECD, writing in this month's Prospect magazine. Nothing remarkable there, you might say. Padoan goes on: "If economic weakness lingers, there is a risk of further polarisation between full-time employees and those in part-time, insecure, often low-paid work." Again, the statement is in one sense unremarkable - except for the important warning from…

I was very glad to hear recently from Anna Coote of nef that they will be publishing a fuller treatment of new approaches to working time. Anna and I agree that it is vital to think of this in the context of working lives, ie over the full period of the decades that people work. Her earlier work for nef focussed very much on a shorter working week, and explored the very broad range of benefits which would flow from a general shortening of the week: a better spread of employment, better family arrangements and a more environmentally friendly consumption patterns, to name but three rather large ones. It's good news…

What is a 'reasonable' pace of change? This is a more basic political question than it might appear. Classically it separates out the revolutionaries from the gradualists. After all, the literal origin of the Fabian movement lies exactly in its gradualism - but Fabians would still see gradual steps as a route to radical reform. On any given issue, there might be quite a lot of consensus on the direction of progress, but serious disagreement on how quickly things can happen (cf the Church of England's recent writhings on women bishops). As Carolyn Heilbron observed, reflecting on a different institution: “Women have legally transformed the marriage relation in under 150…

It's International Women's Day tomorrow, but there'll be no Paula post as I'll be under the surgeon's knife (nothing dramatic). In the run-up I notice particularly a major report from Warwick University analysing the salaries of 17000 recent graduates in full-time work (part-timers again slide out of the picture...). It notes how persistent the gender pay gap is, but also how it varies, from 28% in law to 4% in education. This is at the outset of their careers, remember - things will only get wider. However I thought I'd write on something a bit different. I've just finished Rosemary Ashton's story of Victorian Bloomsbury. I'm lucky enough to be a Bloomsbury…

"The flexibility of Britain's labour market makes stagnation slightly more tolerable in the short-term than in countries where rigid labour markets have contributed to high unemployment. Yet there is a price to pay, as many jobs are part-time or temporary; when you take account of inflation, wages overall are declining." Thus Pier Carlo Padoan, chief economist of OECD, writing in this month's Prospect magazine. Nothing remarkable there, you might say. Padoan goes on: "If economic weakness lingers, there is a risk of further polarisation between full-time employees and those in part-time, insecure, often low-paid work." Again, the statement is in one sense unremarkable - except for the important warning from…

I was very glad to hear recently from Anna Coote of nef that they will be publishing a fuller treatment of new approaches to working time. Anna and I agree that it is vital to think of this in the context of working lives, ie over the full period of the decades that people work. Her earlier work for nef focussed very much on a shorter working week, and explored the very broad range of benefits which would flow from a general shortening of the week: a better spread of employment, better family arrangements and a more environmentally friendly consumption patterns, to name but three rather large ones. It's good news…

What is a 'reasonable' pace of change? This is a more basic political question than it might appear. Classically it separates out the revolutionaries from the gradualists. After all, the literal origin of the Fabian movement lies exactly in its gradualism - but Fabians would still see gradual steps as a route to radical reform. On any given issue, there might be quite a lot of consensus on the direction of progress, but serious disagreement on how quickly things can happen (cf the Church of England's recent writhings on women bishops). As Carolyn Heilbron observed, reflecting on a different institution: “Women have legally transformed the marriage relation in under 150…

It's International Women's Day tomorrow, but there'll be no Paula post as I'll be under the surgeon's knife (nothing dramatic). In the run-up I notice particularly a major report from Warwick University analysing the salaries of 17000 recent graduates in full-time work (part-timers again slide out of the picture...). It notes how persistent the gender pay gap is, but also how it varies, from 28% in law to 4% in education. This is at the outset of their careers, remember - things will only get wider. However I thought I'd write on something a bit different. I've just finished Rosemary Ashton's story of Victorian Bloomsbury. I'm lucky enough to be a Bloomsbury…

"The flexibility of Britain's labour market makes stagnation slightly more tolerable in the short-term than in countries where rigid labour markets have contributed to high unemployment. Yet there is a price to pay, as many jobs are part-time or temporary; when you take account of inflation, wages overall are declining." Thus Pier Carlo Padoan, chief economist of OECD, writing in this month's Prospect magazine. Nothing remarkable there, you might say. Padoan goes on: "If economic weakness lingers, there is a risk of further polarisation between full-time employees and those in part-time, insecure, often low-paid work." Again, the statement is in one sense unremarkable - except for the important warning from…

I was very glad to hear recently from Anna Coote of nef that they will be publishing a fuller treatment of new approaches to working time. Anna and I agree that it is vital to think of this in the context of working lives, ie over the full period of the decades that people work. Her earlier work for nef focussed very much on a shorter working week, and explored the very broad range of benefits which would flow from a general shortening of the week: a better spread of employment, better family arrangements and a more environmentally friendly consumption patterns, to name but three rather large ones. It's good news…

What is a 'reasonable' pace of change? This is a more basic political question than it might appear. Classically it separates out the revolutionaries from the gradualists. After all, the literal origin of the Fabian movement lies exactly in its gradualism - but Fabians would still see gradual steps as a route to radical reform. On any given issue, there might be quite a lot of consensus on the direction of progress, but serious disagreement on how quickly things can happen (cf the Church of England's recent writhings on women bishops). As Carolyn Heilbron observed, reflecting on a different institution: “Women have legally transformed the marriage relation in under 150…

It's International Women's Day tomorrow, but there'll be no Paula post as I'll be under the surgeon's knife (nothing dramatic). In the run-up I notice particularly a major report from Warwick University analysing the salaries of 17000 recent graduates in full-time work (part-timers again slide out of the picture...). It notes how persistent the gender pay gap is, but also how it varies, from 28% in law to 4% in education. This is at the outset of their careers, remember - things will only get wider. However I thought I'd write on something a bit different. I've just finished Rosemary Ashton's story of Victorian Bloomsbury. I'm lucky enough to be a Bloomsbury…

"The flexibility of Britain's labour market makes stagnation slightly more tolerable in the short-term than in countries where rigid labour markets have contributed to high unemployment. Yet there is a price to pay, as many jobs are part-time or temporary; when you take account of inflation, wages overall are declining." Thus Pier Carlo Padoan, chief economist of OECD, writing in this month's Prospect magazine. Nothing remarkable there, you might say. Padoan goes on: "If economic weakness lingers, there is a risk of further polarisation between full-time employees and those in part-time, insecure, often low-paid work." Again, the statement is in one sense unremarkable - except for the important warning from…